In 2020, a coalition against ethnic profiling established a taskforce to handle complaints of people who have experienced ethnic profiling by the Dutch Royal Military Police and/or the Dutch Customs at airports. In this article, 31 complaints that have been received between February 2020 and March 2021 have been analyzed in a qualitative way. The results show that when people with an ethnic stigma are not informed (properly) about why they have been selected, stopped and searched, and treated as suspects instead of false positives, they feel racially profiled, yet take little or no further action in addition to the complaints.

De inzet van nieuwe technische mogelijkheden zoals datakoppeling en analyses met gebruik van algoritmen, biedt nieuwe kansen in de strijd tegen terrorisme en zware ondermijnende criminaliteit. Dit nieuwe terrein van onderzoek staat naast de vertrouwde domeinen van de strafrechtspleging, de bestuurlijke handhaving en de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten. Dat nieuwe terrein zal in dit artikel worden verkend aan de hand van twee ontwikkelingen: de verruiming van de analysetaak van de Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid (NCTV) en de totstandkoming van het Multidisciplinaire interventieteam dat per 1 juli 2022 verder zal gaan onder de naam Nationale Samenwerking tegen Ondermijnende Criminaliteit (hierna: MIT/NSOC).

Legal arrangements rest on behavioural, cognitive, social, and other assumptions regarding their role and function in society and the legal system. The identification and subsequent evaluation of these assumptions is an important task for legal scholarship. In this article, we focus on the identification and categorisation of these assumptions, providing conceptual distinctions and methodological guidance. We distinguish between assumptions about the value(s), norm(s), or interest(s) underlying a legal arrangement, which can be legal or non-legal, and assumptions about the relationship between the legal arrangement and its underlying value(s), norm(s), or interest(s), which can be logical, causal, or contributory. Regarding the identification, we consider explicit references and inference to the best explanation and theory-driven evaluations as possible methods. Inference to the best explanation, we posit, functions as a manner of reconstructing the theory that the person(s) creating a legal arrangement had in mind regarding the place and function of that legal arrangement in society. Given this, we offer a step-by-step approach to reconstructing this theory in use, drawing from theory-driven evaluations and its sources in the social sciences. These distinctions and guidelines can contribute to understanding the context and untangling the complexities involved in identifying the assumptions that underlie legal arrangements.

In this article we introduce the main principles of the Polish dismissal protection regulation. Issues addressed include the underlying principles for the system of dismissal protection, notice periods, justifiable reasons for dismissal, consultation of trade unions and how to remedy unfair or defective dismissals. We also very briefly touch upon dismissal protection of civil servants.

Originally, Article 12 of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure was intended as a correction mechanism for the prosecution monopoly of the Public Prosecution Service. In a later stage, the private interest of complainants (or victims) became more central. This article argues that a third function now emerges: a valve function for social dissatisfaction. The social conflicts that underly the proceedings in these socially sensitive cases give rise to new democratic legitimacy problems. However, an appropriate normative framework that captures these new democratic demands has not yet been constructed. To this end, this article provides an alternative democratic vocabulary in order to bridge the gap between empirical and normative notions of legitimacy. By means of a historical and normative analysis, it will be argued that Article 12 has an important democratic potential within the characteristically autonomous Dutch system of criminal law.

The duration of conditional release has changed from one third of the prison sentence to a maximum of two years. One goal of this alteration was to increase credibility and legitimacy of prison sentences. This experimental study focuses on whether the new system improves this as compared to the previous situation. Results show that sentences based on the new system don’t receive higher valuation from Dutch citizens than sentences based on the old system. Therefore, an important reason for the change isn’t supported by our findings. Rather, what remains is a system riddled with objections and possible negative effects for prisoners and society.

The subject of this article is constitutional transformations in Sub-Saharan Africa upon and after the region’s encounter with the third wave of democratization in Africa (TWD) that took place between 1989 and 1994. Since failure in democratic rule in the region was associated with the ease with which political elites amended formal constitutions to subvert democracy, anti-authoritarian factions perceived the solution to the problems bedevilling democratic governance in Africa to lie in formal constitutional rewriting. Hence, virtually all countries ventured into constitutional change – amendment or substitution – in the early 1990s. Inasmuch as different countries changed different formal aspects of their constitutions, they largely recognized multiparty democracy and obliterated the hitherto formulations that either allowed or endorsed single-party political regimes. Yet, on the ground different transitional outcomes were achieved, with a majority of countries either failing to transform at all from de facto authoritarianism or simply making partial transitions into semi-authoritarian or rather hybrid regimes. Using Cameroon, Kenya and Benin, this article contends that disestablishment of authoritarian rule depends on certain enabling factors, which seem to go beyond textual formulation and which may account for both the present conditions of these countries and the different transitional outcomes that were realized after these countries changed their formal constitutions in the early 1990s.

In this article, the author reflects on the impact of COVID-19 on policing, the relations among police officers and the interactions between police and citizens based on systematic social observations in small to semi-sized local police forces during the pandemic. The article discusses the nature of police work during the crisis and new types of interventions that police officers are confronted with (e.g. curfew controls). Additionally, the impact of the pandemic on the internal and external relations is discussed. Internally, the COVID-19 measures may have an impact on police officers’ possibilities for personal, social interactions among colleagues, which may potentially challenge the solidarity within the police force. Externally, tensions may arise in relations with citizens, partly because of unclear regulations or variable interpretations of those regulations. Those unclear regulations, but also uncertainties concerning one’s own competences and questions regarding the police’s role in enforcing the pandemic regulations, put pressure on the police’s (self-)legitimacy.

Based on a scoping review regarding international policy recommendations, the authors of this article explore the most important aspects concerning bodycam policies for police services. Even though most literature on the shortlist is situated in the United States, important issues are discussed for a Belgian bodycam policy. Examples are a clear activation policy and regulations regarding warnings. These recommendations are compared to the legal regulations on bodycams in Belgium, such as the individual discretion Belgian police officers have when activating the camera. Throughout the article, the use of bodycams is linked to procedural justice. Because of the scarcity of Belgian bodycam research, we also give some recommendations for further research on this topic.

In the past years important changes have occurred in police work in the Netherlands and Belgium. These developments, and new questions that arose because of these developments, are the reason we dedicate a special issue to ‘the police and citizen in a changing context’. In this introduction of this issue, we describe a number of developments and new questions. We address the changing distance between police officers and citizens, authority and trust, the role of citizens, technology and digitization and growing complexity and diversity. In addition, the articles in this special issue are introduced.

In zijn oratie gaat Kemp in op de spanning die binnen de vennootschap bestaat tussen de vennootschapsleiding die het belang van de vennootschap moet behartigen en de aandeelhouders die – volgens de heersende leer – hun eigen belang mogen behartigen. Mede op grond van rechtseconomische gedachten doet hij een aanzet tot hoe de bevoegdheidsverdeling binnen de vennootschap verder kan worden vormgegeven.

Many doctrinal legal research questions require making use of other academic disciplines or perspectives. This article explains the relevance of legal philosophy for doctrinal research projects. Often legal research questions have conceptual or evaluative dimensions that presuppose philosophical understanding. For research on the concept of democracy, the function of constitutional rights, or the possible introduction of a referendum in the Netherlands, questions of a philosophical nature need to be answered. Legal philosophy can supplement and enrich doctrinal research in various ways. In this article, we present seven purposes that legal philosophy may serve in the context of a doctrinal research project: conceptual clarification, exposition and reconstruction of fundamental normative principles and values, theory building, providing creative perspectives, structural critiques, evaluation, and recommendations. For each objective, we illustrate how to use relevant philosophical methods. Thus, this article complements our earlier publication ‘Legal Philosophy as an Enrichment of Doctrinal Research – Part I: Introducing Three Philosophical Methods’.¹x http://www.lawandmethod.nl/tijdschrift/lawandmethod/2020/01/lawandmethod-D-19-00006.

Noten

• * This text has been presented to classes at the University of Zagreb, Queen Mary University of London and Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam; we profited from the feedback of our students. We also want to thank Irma Bluijs, Machteld Geuskens, Tamar de Waal and the reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this article, and Jacqueline Brand and Robert Poll for providing research assistance.

• 1 http://www.lawandmethod.nl/tijdschrift/lawandmethod/2020/01/lawandmethod-D-19-00006.

This article discusses the key methodological shortcomings of experimental regulations and regulatory sandboxes. I argue that the poor design and implementation of these experimental legal regimes have both methodological and legal implications. The deficient design of experimental regulations and regulatory sandboxes can have three adverse effects: First, the internal validity of experimental legal regimes is limited because it is unclear whether the verified results are the direct result of the experimental intervention or other circumstances. The limited external validity of experimental legal regimes impedes the generalizability of the experiment. Second, experimental legal regimes that are not scientifically sound make a limited contribution to the advancement of evidence-based lawmaking and the rationalization of regulation. Third, methodological deficiencies may result in the violation of legal principles which require that experimental regulations follow objective, transparent, and predictable standards. I contribute to existing comparative public law and law and methods literature with an interdisciplinary framework which can help improve the design of experimental regulations and regulatory sandboxes. I draw on social science literature on the methods of field experiments to offer novel methodological insights for a more transparent and objective design of experimental regulations and regulatory sandboxes.

While research has increasingly focused on the role of digitalisation in prisoners’ detention experiences, the impact of the digitalisation of the prison regime on the discretionary power of prison officers has been understudied. By using an ethnographic approach in one digital Belgian prison, qualitative interview data are used to investigate the prison officer’s coping strategies in response to the digitalisation of prison life. It is found that the gatekeeping role of prison officer’s has been partly stripped away but also that the impact of digitalisation on the prison officer’s discretionary power depends on how digital technologies are implemented. Moreover, the study reveals that not all official goals regarding the digitalisation are met and highlights the need of supporting prison officers when implementing new technologies in prison.

Procedural justice has been at the forefront of empirical legal research in the Netherlands in past years. One of the major goals of this research is to find out what the effects are of the perception of procedural justice. In this article, I argue that the notion of procedural justice is deontological in nature. It has an intrinsic value, which means that it cannot be weighed against other interests. This is recognized in law: people have a right to a fair trial. However, since in social scientific research the focus is on the effects of procedural justice, researchers treat this concept (also) as a consequentialist notion. It is thought of as a means which can serve some useful end. My aim is to assess whether this way of valuing procedural justice can be considered acceptable. An important upshot of my discussion is that conducting research into procedural justice implies a normative stance. Finally, I suggest ways in which an all too instrumental approach to procedural justice can be avoided.

Some of the existential threats we currently face are global in the sense that they affect us all, and thus matter of global concern and trigger duties of moral global solidarity. But some of these global threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, are global in a second, additional, sense: discharging them requires joint, coordinated global action. For that reason, these twofold global threats trigger political – not merely moral – duties of global solidarity. This article explores the contrast between these two types of global threats with the purpose of clarifying the distinction between moral and political duties of global solidarity. And, in the absence of a fully developed global democratic institutional system, the article also explores some promising ways to fulfill our global political duties, especially those based on mechanisms of collective intelligence such as CrowdLaw, which might provide effective solutions to these global threats while enhancing the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making.

This contribution explores the meaning and scope of solidarity with the emergence of the coronavirus discourse as formulated by politicians in order to make sense of the virus. It offers a poststructuralist account drawing on discourse theory together with insights from Levinas and Derrida. This leads to a critical reflection on the prevailing view of solidarity as secondary and derivative to corona policies, because solidarity is often subjugated to hegemonic meanings of efficiency. Instead, the argument is made that solidarity refers to the unique responsibility to which the other as wholly other commands me. This appeal for responsibility, that is presented in the face of the other, is to be assumed in the distance between the rules and the singularity of the situation. Accordingly, solidarity is described as a paradox of dependence (calculability) and independence (beyond calculation), that appears in a moment of undecidability, for it can never be overcome.

In times of crisis, we witness exceptional expressions of solidarity. Why does solidarity spring in times of crisis when it wanes in normal times? An inquiry into what may explain the differences between the expression of solidarity in crisis vs. normalcy provides, as I will argue in this article, important insights into the conditions and nature of solidarity. Solidarity requires, I will contend, an egalitarian ethos and state action within and beyond the state. It is neither a momentary political ideal, nor an exclusionary one, which depends for its sustainment on formal, legal, structures. Transient, sectarian, and informal conceptions of solidarity unduly curtail the demands of solidarity by restricting its reach to times of crisis, to in-group recipients, and to the social rather than the legal sphere. The article concludes by discussing some aspects of the dynamics of solidarity and its inherent risks that the analysis of the exceptionality of solidarity helps bring into focus.